I am trying to use an Array instead of a list in my query. But I must get the count first before I can iterate through the objects returned from the database. Here is my code:
var FavArray = favorites.OrderByDescending(y => y.post_date).Skip((page - 1) * config.MaxRowsPerPage).Take(config.MaxRowsPerPage).ToArray();
int FavArrayCount = FavArray.Count(); //Is this a round trip to the database?
for (int y = 0; y < FavArrayCount; y++)
{
q = new PostType();
q.Title = FavArray[y].post_title;
q.Date = FavArray[y].post_date;
q.PostID = FavArray[y].post_id;
q.Username = FavArray[y].user_username;
q.UsernameLowered = FavArray[y].user_username.ToLower();
q.CategoryID = FavArray[y].catid;
q.CategoryName = FavArray[y].name;
q.TitleSlug = FavArray[y].post_titleslug;
}
As you can see I need the count before I start iterating and I am worried that getting the count my make a trip to the database. Is this true?
FavArray.Count() will not round trip, because you have already converted it to an array, which is no longer "LINQ-ified".
Once you call ToArray, any operations on the array that it returns will not go back to the server. (Unless you use a foreign key)
LINQ methods such as Count() that you call on the array will use regular LINQ to Objects and will be completely unaware of SQL Server.
In addition to other comments (it definitely won't round trip; it's just an array), you can just use favArray.Length.
Related
I am new to Linq, using C#. I got a big surprise when I executed the following:
var scores = objects.Select( i => new { object = i,
score1 = i.algorithm1(),
score2 = i.algorithm2(),
score3 = i.algorithm3() } );
double avg2 = scores.Average( i => i.score2); // algorithm1() is called for every object
double cutoff2 = avg2 + scores.Select( i => i.score2).StdDev(); // algorithm1() is called for every object
double avg3 = scores.Average( i => i.score3); // algorithm1() is called for every object
double cutoff3 = avg3 + scores.Select( i => i.score3).StdDev(); // algorithm1() is called for every object
foreach( var s in scores.Where( i => i.score2 > cutoff2 | i.score3 > cutoff3 ).OrderBy( i => i.score1 )) // algorithm1() is called for every object
{
Debug.Log(String.Format ("{0} {1} {2} {3}\n", s.object, s.score1, s.score2/avg2, s.score3/avg3));
}
The attributes in my new objects store the function calls rather than the values. Each time I tried to access an attribute, the original function is called. I assume this is a huge waste of time? How can I avoid this?
Yes, you've discovered that LINQ uses deferred execution. This is a normal part of LINQ, and very handy indeed for building up queries without actually executing anything until you need to - which in turn is great for pipelines of multiple operations over potentially huge data sources which can be streamed.
For more details about how LINQ to Objects works internally, you might want to read my Edulinq blog series - it's basically a reimplementation of the whole of LINQ to Objects, one method at a time. Hopefully by the end of that you'll have a much clearer idea of what to expect.
If you want to materialize the query, you just need to call ToList or ToArray to build an in-memory copy of the results:
var scores = objects.Select( i => new { object = i,
score1 = i.algorithm1(),
score2 = i.algorithm2(),
score3 = i.algorithm3() } ).ToList();
If I wrote :
for (int i = 0; i < Strutture.Count(); i++)
{
}
and Strutture is an IEnumerable with 200 elements, IIS crash. That's because I see every time I do Strutture.Count() it executes all LINQ queries linked with that IEnumerable.
So, how can I get the "current" number of elements? I need a list?
"That's because I see every time I do Strutture.Count() it executes all LINQ queries linked with that IEnumerable."
Without doing such, how is it going to know how many elements there are?
For example:
Enumerable.Range(0,1000).Where(i => i % 2==0).Skip(100).Take(5).Count();
Without executing the LINQ, how could you know how many elements there are?
If you want to know how many elements there are in the source (e.g. Enumerable.Range) then I suggest you use a reference to that source and query it directly. E.g.
var numbers = Enumerable.Range(0,1000);
numbers.Count();
Also keep in mind some data sources don't really have a concept of 'Count' or if they do it involves going through every single item and counting them.
Lastly, if you're using .Count() repetitively [and you don't expect the value to actually change] it can be a good idea to cache:
var count = numbers.Count();
for (int i =0; i<count; i++) // Do Something
Supplemental:
"At first Count(), LINQ queries are executes. Than, for the next, it just "check" the value :) Not "execute the LINQ query again..." :)" - Markzzz
Then why don't we do that?
var query = Enumerable.Range(0,1000).Where(i => i % 2==0).Skip(100).Take(5).Count();
var result = query.ToArray() //Gets and stores the result!
result.Length;
:)
"But when I do the first "count", it should store (after the LINQ queries) the new IEnumerable (the state is changed). If I do again .Count(), why LINQ need to execute again ALL queries." - Markzzz
Because you're creating a query that gets compiled down into X,Y,Z. You're running the same query twice however the result may vary.
For example, check this out:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var dataSource = Enumerable.Range(0, 100).ToList();
var query = dataSource.Where(i => i % 2 == 0);
//Run the query once and return the count:
Console.WriteLine(query.Count()); //50
//Now lets modify the datasource - remembering this could be a table in a db etc.
dataSource.AddRange(Enumerable.Range(100, 100));
//Run the query again and return the count:
Console.WriteLine(query.Count()); //100
Console.ReadLine();
}
This is why I recommended storing the results of the query above!
Materialize the number:
int number = Strutture.Count();
for (int i = 0; i < number; i++)
{
}
or materialize the list:
var list = Strutture.ToList();
for (int i = 0; i < list.Count; i++)
{
}
or use a foreach
foreach(var item in Strutture)
{
}
I want to extract part of a collection to another collection.
I can easily do the same using a for loop, but my linq query is not working for the same.
I am a neophyte in Linq, so please help me correcting the query (if possible with explanation / beginners tutorial link)
Legacy way of doing :
Collection<string> testColl1 = new Collection<string> {"t1", "t2", "t3", "t4"};
Collection<string> testColl2 = new Collection<string>();
for (int i = 0; i < newLength; i++)
{
testColl2.Add(testColl1[i]);
}
Where testColl1 is the source & testColl2 is the desired truncated collection of count = newLength.
I have used the following linq queries, but none of them are working ...
var result = from t in testColl1 where t.Count() <= newLength select t;
var res = testColl1.Where(t => t.Count() <= newLength);
Use Enumerable.Take:
var testColl2 = testColl1.Take(newLength).ToList();
Note that there's a semantic difference between your for loop and the version using Take. The for loop will throw with IndexOutOfRangeException exception if there are less than newLength items in testColl1, whereas the Take version will silently ignore this fact and just return as many items up to newLength items.
The correct way is by using Take:
var result = testColl1.Take(newLength);
An equivalent way using Where is:
var result = testColl1.Where((i, item) => i < newLength);
These expressions will produce an IEnumerable, so you might also want to attach a .ToList() or .ToArray() at the end.
Both ways return one less item than your original implementation does because it is more natural (e.g. if newLength == 0 no items should be returned).
You could convert to for loop to something like this:
testColl1.Take(newLength)
Use Take:
var result = testColl1.Take(newLength);
This extension method returns the first N elements from the collection where N is the parameter you pass, in this case newLength.
I have a program with multiple int variables where individual counts are added to the specific variable each time a set fail condition is encountered. I want the user to be able to track how many failures of each category they have encountered by a button click. I want to display the range on a datagridview in order from highest value integer down to lowest. I also need to display in the adjacent column the name of the test step that relates to the value. My plan was to use Array.sort to order the integers but i then lose track of their names so cant assign the adjacent string column. I tried using a hashtable but if i use the string as a key it sorts alphabetically not numerically and if i use the integer as a key i get duplicate entries which dont get added to the hash table. here is some of the examples i tried but they have the aforementioned problems. essentially i want to end with two arrays where the order matches the naming and value convention. FYI the variables were declared before this section of code, variables ending in x are the string name for the (non x) value of the integer.
Hashtable sorter = new Hashtable();
sorter[download] = downloadx;
sorter[power] = powerx;
sorter[phase] = phasex;
sorter[eeprom] = eepromx;
sorter[upulse] = upulsex;
sorter[vpulse] = vpulsex;
sorter[wpulse] = wpulsex;
sorter[volts] = voltsx;
sorter[current] = currentx;
sorter[ad] = adx;
sorter[comms] = commsx;
sorter[ntc] = ntcx;
sorter[prt] = prtx;
string list = "";
string[] names = new string[13];
foreach (DictionaryEntry child in sorter)
{
list += child.Value.ToString() + "z";
}
int[] ordered = new int[] { download, power, phase, eeprom, upulse, vpulse, wpulse, volts, current, ad, comms, ntc, prt };
Array.Sort(ordered);
Array.Reverse(ordered);
for (int i = 0; i < sorter.Count; i++)
{
int pos = list.IndexOf("z");
names[i] = list.Substring(0, pos);
list = list.Substring(pos + 1);
}
First question here so hope its not too longwinded.
Thanks
Use a Dictionary. And you can order it by the value : myDico.OrderBy(x => x.Value).Reverse(), the sort will be numerical descending. You just have to enumerate the result.
I hope I understand your need. Otherwise ignore me.
You want to be using a
Dictionary <string, int>
to store your numbers.I'm not clear on how you're displaying results at the end - do you have a grid or a list control?
You ask about usings. Which ones do you already have?
EDIT for .NET 2.0
There might be a more elegant solution, but you could implement the logic by putting your rows in a DataTable. Then you can make a DataView of that table and sort by whichever column you like, ascending or descending.
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.dataview(v=VS.80).aspx for example.
EDIT for .NET 3.5 and higher
As far as sorting a Dictionary by its values:
var sortedEntries = myDictionary.OrderBy(pair => pair.Value);
If you need the results to be a Dictionary, you can call .ToDictionary() on that. For reverse order, use .OrderByDescending(pair => pair.Value).
I have a dictionary of type
Dictionary<DateTime,double> dictionary
How can I retrive a minimum value and key coresponding to this value from this dictionary using linq ?
var min = dictionary.OrderBy(kvp => kvp.Value).First();
var minKey = min.Key;
var minValue = min.Value;
This is not very efficient though; you might want to consider MoreLinq's MinBy extension method.
If you are performing this query very often, you might want to consider a different data-structure.
Aggregate
var minPair = dictionary.Aggregate((p1, p2) => (p1.Value < p2.Value) ? p1 : p2);
Using the mighty Aggregate method.
I know that MinBy is cleaner in this case, but with Aggregate you have more power and its built-in. ;)
Dictionary<DateTime, double> dictionary;
//...
double min = dictionary.Min(x => x.Value);
var minMatchingKVPs = dictionary.Where(x => x.Value == min);
You could combine it of course if you really felt like doing it on one line, but I think the above is easier to read.
var minMatchingKVPs = dictionary.Where(x => x.Value == dictionary.Min(y => y.Value));
You can't easily do this efficiently in normal LINQ - you can get the minimal value easily, but finding the key requires another scan through. If you can afford that, use Jess's answer.
However, you might want to have a look at MinBy in MoreLINQ which would let you write:
var pair = dictionary.MinBy(x => x.Value);
You'd then have the pair with both the key and the value in, after just a single scan.
EDIT: As Nappy says, MinBy is also in System.Interactive in Reactive Extensions.